Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
? >> i have listened carefully to the honorable member and his bravery of standing up to murdoch. does he regret the previous government held a slumber party for elizabeth murdock and? >> and make no apologies for our relationship. i hope members on the other side will ask their leaders to set out what happened in the relationship of the party with news international. >> rebekah brooks resigned and was arrested. the head of the metropolitan police resigned. rupert murdoch and james murdoch appeared before the commons. >> what happened at "the news of the world" was wrong. we have apologized profusely for that. these are very serious matters. thee trying to establish facts of any new allegations as they come up. we're working closely with the police to find out where the wrongdoing was and to hold people accountable. >> do you think it is possible that editors of your newspaper would not have known about these activities? >> i cannot say that because of the police inquiries. i presume there are coming judicial proceedings. >> at what point did you find out that criminality was endemic @ "t
primary caucus states. -- twitter feed. did rupert murdoch's news international announced today that its shutting down the british tabloid "new of the world." the newspaper is accused of hacking into the cell phone messages of british politicians, crime victims, and families of service personnel killed in iraq and afghanistan. if before the newspaper announced it was closing, members of the british house of commons held an emergency debate on wednesday to discuss whether a full public inquiry was needed to look into the phone hacking. you're the first hour of that debate with remarks by the british attorney general and the labor spokesman for home affairs. >> we come to the emergency debate on phone hacking at the news o >> the housethe house will obsen the light of interest, i have imposed a seven minute limit on the back bench contributions. it'll take effect after the contributions. it'll depend on early contributions. to open the debate, i call mr. bryan's. in were hacked by the news of the world. >> one family member spoke today. another has been in touch with me and several others.
business. whether it is fox news or murdoch or wherever. that is where he thinks he's a support should go, not for the american people. host: you are a republican? caller: i became a republican at oxford university. having seen what i have seen in the past few months in particular, there is no way that republicans will get my vote in the near future. guest: it sounds like you have some interesting things to say. what you said about the consumer reau consolidang into one place, that is 80% true. it consolidates them into one bureau. there is additnal authority that it will have, and that is to supervise and regulate what are called non-bank financial firms. those are financial firms that do not take deposits. payday lenders, mortgage originators, that kind of thing. the principal was very simple. in the run-up to the fancial crisis we had essentially what became known as the shadow banking industry. this was the mortgage factories that existed outside the deposit banks that turned up some bad mortgages and led to the crisis. what you said is 80% true, but it was important to add a little b
hacking and matra police. and a discussion regarding rupert murdoch. and on sunday, a woman was arrested and questioned about her knowledge regarding the phone hacking. this will be on c-span 3 and 9:30 a.m. eastern. and he republicans are calling " a piece of legislation cut, cap, and the balance. congress must pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. that is according to president obama. due to technical problems, we will rejoin our coverage in progress. future congresses will have to make tough decisions. it does not mandate one way or the other that the social security or medicare gets cut. it is disingenuous to suggest that this plan cuts entitlements. >> if i could respond to that question. i can assure you they were not going for this kind of twisted version of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. this is an effort to manipulate the constitution to stack the deck in certain ways. it has two devices to do that. one is to require a supermajority vote to raise revenue. the other device is putting on this 18% cap. these are not in in the balanced budget amendment s
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4